Rogers Media uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences. Rogers Media supports the Digital Advertising Alliance principles. By continuing to use our service, you agree to our use of cookies.

We use cookies (why?) You can change cookie preferences. Continued site use signifies consent.

And this morning here in Sudbury, Jack Layton recommitted to funding for doctors, nurses, medical education and medical school infrastructure ($25-million for training, $20-million to repatriate Canadian doctors practicing overseas, $40-million to recruit and support low income, rural and aboriginal students, $80-million for educational infrastructure, student loan forgiveness for family doctors, streamlining credential recognition and establishing a Health Human Resources Centre). The plan is similar to one announced by Mr. Layton in 2008.

It's funny how you only singled out the Conservatives when it's all parties who are the beneficiaries of the deductions, aren't they?

Why keep one form of subsidy and not the other? At least with the donation deduction, people have a direct say as to which party gets their money. That is not the case with the per vote measure, is it.

Yes it is. You vote for them, they get the subsidy. You don't want them getting the subsidy, don't vote for them.

Merrill S on April 1, 2011 at 12:48 pm

In other words, a vote has turned into a publicly funded contribution scheme. People vote for lots of reasons, yet the subsidy translates all that into a vote for a contribution. That's arbitrary. While the deduction benefits the parties that are directly being contributed to, doesn't it. The latter seems fairer somehow. It doesn't generate public cash out of thin air.

I didn't single them out, I was commenting on their own policy announcement. It is the Conservative party that is decided to propose this specific component of financing reform, so I do think it is far to ask why they feel that political parties should be given an advantage in a competitive fund raising environment over other charities.

Had it been the Liberals who were proposing this, I would ask why a donation to the Liberal Party should be treated differently than the Canadian Liver Foundation, if it were a NDP proposal, a similar question could be put forward, why the NDP and not the Canadian Diabetes Association .

As to your other point, how is with the per vote measure not based on choice?

bennji1977 on April 1, 2011 at 12:54 pm

lol, I love it how some people on here will argue that up is down and left is right without second thought. Yes, you did single out the Conservatives, and you did it regarding a measure that applies to all the parties. They don't want to touch the deduction, but you associated them with it, and the church! lol

Regarding my other point, since when is a vote equivalent to a political donation? If someone wants to make the latter, tax incentive are already in place to encourage that. Now a democratic vote has been turned into a public subsidy for private parties.

People vote for all kinds of reasons. But the subsidy forces that vote to be transformed into a contribution, too. Again, people can contribute directly to the parties, if that's what they want.

Why is a donation to the Conservative Party of Canada treated any differently than one to the Canadian Cancer Society?

***

Because the people who want you to give them money to run political parties also wrote the income tax act, and before the per-vote amount it was the ONLY funding mechanism in place, so they really had to encourage it.

It WASN'T in place. After Chretien's law was passed, corporations and unions could still give money to political parties and candidates (just less than before). After Harper's law, they couldn't do that anymore. It's not complicated.

The Ontario government runs thinly-veiled partisan ads all the time. Every government does it. And every opposition party promises to stop it, and breaks that promise the second they get into office. One of the perks of being in government is that you get to use its levers to your own advantage. Shall always be this way.

It's funny how you only singled out the Conservatives when it's all parties who are the beneficiaries of the deductions, aren't they?

Why keep one form of subsidy and not the other? At least with the donation deduction, people have a direct say as to which party gets their money. That is not the case with the per vote measure, is it.

It WASN'T in place. After Chretien's law was passed, corporations and unions could still give money to political parties and candidates (just less than before). After Harper's law, they couldn't do that anymore. It's not complicated.

I didn't single them out, I was commenting on their own policy announcement. It is the Conservative party that is decided to propose this specific component of financing reform, so I do think it is far to ask why they feel that political parties should be given an advantage in a competitive fund raising environment over other charities.

Had it been the Liberals who were proposing this, I would ask why a donation to the Liberal Party should be treated differently than the Canadian Liver Foundation, if it were a NDP proposal, a similar question could be put forward, why the NDP and not the Canadian Diabetes Association .

As to your other point, how is that the per vote measure not based on choice?

In other words, a vote has turned into a publicly funded contribution scheme. People vote for lots of reasons, yet the subsidy translates all that into a vote for a contribution. That's arbitrary. While the deduction benefits the parties that are directly being contributed to, doesn't it. The latter seems fairer somehow. It doesn't generate public cash out of thin air.

lol, I love it how some people on here will argue that up is down and left is right without second thought. Yes, you did single out the Conservatives, and you did it regarding a measure that applies to all the parties. They don't want to touch the deduction, but you associated them with it, and the church! lol

Regarding my other point, since when is a vote equivalent to a political donation? If someone wants to make the latter, tax incentive are already in place to encourage that. Now a democratic vote has been turned into a public subsidy for private parties.

People vote for all kinds of reasons. But the subsidy forces that vote to be transformed into a contribution, too. Again, people can contribute directly to the parties, if that's what they want.

Per vote subsidies is a bit of a yawner for me IMO. It may not be such a bad thing to get rid of them as it reduces the splintering effect of parliament with small parties pulling in different directions. Yes Green Party I am talking about you.

OTOH isn't that what democracy is about? You hit a certain voter threshold so you get funded. I can see why Harper would not like that. Democracy…elections…open dialogue… it's all messiness that IS a distraction to Dear Leader.

Per vote subsidies is a bit of a yawner for me IMO. It may not be such a bad thing to get rid of them as it reduces the splintering effect of parliament with small parties pulling in different directions. Yes Green Party I am talking about you.

OTOH isn't that what democracy is about? You hit a certain voter threshold so you get funded. I can see why Harper would not like that. Democracy…elections…open dialogue… it's all messiness that IS a distraction to Dear Leader.

They've run ads on their full time kindergarten program. They've run ads on their Green Belt implementation. They're run ads on their program to provide jobs education. Like I said, they all do it, but the only time you hear any yelling and screaming is when conservatives do it.

Granted those are ads. And ads about stuff they'd like people to know they did and are trying to do. But, and here's a caution, every ad proposed by the Government of Ontario, no matter its stripe, currently has to be reviewed by the provincial AG before it even has a chance of being produced. There are certainly ways of 'tailoring' communication to meet 'the letter' if not 'the law'. But it's actually pretty strictly enforced by the AG in Ontario. Unsure as to how it goes with the Feds outside of a writ, but the Ontario rules are probably more strict.

I think those rules are just window dressing. You can't legislate against governments advertising their handpicked programs.

Speaking of Ontario, never can I remember any government at any level using a budget to specifically attack an opposition, yet that's exactly what the McGuinty Liberals did recently against their Conservative opposition. And not a peep from those who blast Harper for being hyper-partisan and not defending his own agenda positively.

Budgets are 'pro forma' political documents. In an election year, even more so. If you're sugesting that the last D.O.A . CPC budget was not a 'political document' – campaign platform , even – it has to be regrettably suggested you're being disingenuous at best

frobisher on April 1, 2011 at 6:11 pm

The McGuinty Liberals attacked – I repeat, they attacked – their opposition on specific budget provisions. Never have I seen that in politics before. Mind you, the same people who attack Harper for being partisan and attacking the opposition didn't say boo when McGuinty pulled this desperate stunt.

And agreed, you most certainly cannot "legislate against governments advertising their handpicked programs". The EA!P, for example. The Harper Government considers this an achievement. So, to them, it's worth $26 M to make that loud and clear to Canadians with taxpayer's dough. (No other gov't would've done otherwise, one suspects.)

But the Ontario AG rules – put in place to curb the perceived partisan communication excesses of the Harris Gov't – are, believe it or not, pretty constrictive. Effectively so, one might argue.

As for budgets, c'mon. Name one political party that has not used a budget as a cudgel – whether sheathed in satin, leather or sharp spiky bits – to not subtly (or otherwise) bludgeon their opposition.

frobisher on April 1, 2011 at 6:33 pm

No, I'm not an "unabashed" partisan. I think governments of all stripes use advertising for partisan purposes. In fact, you're the one who came on here to sell the bill of goods that Ontario doesn't do this kind of stuff when they clearly do. Yes, budgets are partisan, but never as explicitly so as what I saw in Ontario this week.

Fine. You're a non-partisan, then. Or an ashamed partisan, Whatever. Nothing's being sold here, Dennis_F, just facts as experienced. If you can offer otherwise, have at it.

Next.

frobisher on April 1, 2011 at 7:30 pm

They've run ads on their full time kindergarten program. They've run ads on their Green Belt implementation. They're run ads on their program to provide jobs education. Like I said, they all do it, but the only time you hear any yelling and screaming is when conservatives do it.

Granted those are ads. And ads about stuff they'd like people to know they did and are trying to do. But, and here's a caution, every ad proposed by the Government of Ontario, no matter its stripe, currently has to be reviewed by the provincial AG before it even has a chance of being produced. There are certainly ways of 'tailoring' communication to meet 'the letter' if not 'the law'. But it's actually pretty strictly enforced by the AG in Ontario. Unsure as to how it goes with the Feds outside of a writ, but the Ontario rules are probably more strict.

I think those rules are just window dressing. You can't legislate against governments advertising their handpicked programs.

Speaking of Ontario, never can I remember any government at any level using a budget to specifically attack an opposition, yet that's exactly what the McGuinty Liberals did recently against their Conservative opposition. And not a peep from those who blast Harper for being hyper-partisan and not defending his own agenda positively.

Budgets are 'pro forma' political documents. In an election year, even more so. If you're sugesting that the last D.O.A . CPC budget was not a 'political document' – campaign platform , even – it has to be regrettably suggested you're being disingenuous at best

The McGuinty Liberals attacked – I repeat, they attacked – their opposition on specific budget provisions. Never have I seen that in politics before. Mind you, the same people who attack Harper for being partisan and attacking the opposition didn't say boo when McGuinty pulled this desperate stunt.

Why is a donation to the Conservative Party of Canada treated any differently than one to the Canadian Cancer Society?

***

Because the people who want you to give them money to run political parties also wrote the income tax act, and before the per-vote amount it was the ONLY funding mechanism in place, so they really had to encourage it.

Iggy should find a reduction in both the per-vote and the tax credit which would save MORE total money than the CPCs plan to just eliminate the per-vote, then position himself as the fairer candidate who will save taxpayers even MORE money. Put some restrictions on government advertising and he can come out ahead of Harper on the issue the CPC wants to hit him with!

Iggy should find a reduction in both the per-vote and the tax credit which would save MORE total money than the CPCs plan to just eliminate the per-vote, then position himself as the fairer candidate who will save taxpayers even MORE money. Put some restrictions on government advertising and he can come out ahead of Harper on the issue the CPC wants to hit him with!

And agreed, you most certainly cannot "legislate against governments advertising their handpicked programs". The EA!P, for example. The Harper Government considers this an achievement. So, to them, it's worth $26 M to make that loud and clear to Canadians with taxpayer's dough. (No other gov't would've done otherwise, one suspects.)

But the Ontario AG rules – put in place to curb the perceived partisan communication excesses of the Harris Gov't – are, believe it or not, pretty constrictive. Effectively so, one might argue.

As for budgets, c'mon. Name one political party that has not used a budget as a cudgel – whether sheathed in satin, leather or sharp spiky bits – to not subtly (or otherwise) bludgeon their opposition.

No, I'm not an "unabashed" partisan. I think governments of all stripes use advertising for partisan purposes. In fact, you're the one who came on here to sell the bill of goods that Ontario doesn't do this kind of stuff when they clearly do. Yes, budgets are partisan, but never as explicitly so as what I saw in Ontario this week.

Nice put up! Maintaining this text about free dating not so short is the important thing to retaining readers. Before I even started studying your opinion about singles, I scrolled right down to see how much time it might have taken me to learn it to completion. Quality advice. I enjoyed studying your articles about dating. This is a fairly superior data and I absolutely love it. Please comment back and thanks for sharing your expertise with us!

Nice put up! Maintaining this text about free dating not so short is the important thing to retaining readers. Before I even started studying your opinion about singles, I scrolled right down to see how much time it might have taken me to learn it to completion. Quality advice. I enjoyed studying your articles about dating. This is a fairly superior data and I absolutely love it. Please comment back and thanks for sharing your expertise with us!

Notice: Your email may not yet have been verified. Please check your email, click the link to verify your address, and then submit your comment. If you can't find this email, access your profile editor to re-send the confirmation email. You must have a verified email to submit a comment. Once you have done so, check again.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.